2 forum messages posted by
Ephraim Radner

I suppose that one reason that some Americans wonder about the Nigerian constitutional changes is that some of us look at them through the lens of our own church, ECUSA.  We might well pose the question in the context of ECUSAs documents of self-ordering:  what, if any, constitutional changes would protect or could have protected ECUSA from its current dissolution?  Would constitutional changes like the Nigerian churchs be helpful to ECUSA, more so than its current 1967 version?  How might matters have played out in ECUSA if in fact we had a constitution in conformity with the new Nigerian revisions?  And what, if anything, does an answer to these kinds of questions say about the revisions themselves?

The 1967 Preamble to ECUSAs Constitution was framed to conform to the language and ecclesial spirit of the 1930 Lambeth discussion of the newly prominent Communion character to Anglicanism (cf. Resolution 49)   being a constituent member of  the fellowship [the Anglican Communion itself] within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury that share common characteristics, including upholding and propogating the historic faith and order of the Church (in Lambeth 1930, this was termed the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order), as set forth in the Book of Common prayer. 

All this was seen, in 1967, as binding ECUSA to the Communion in a fundamental way.  Of course, ECUSAs Prayer Book also (e.g. in its original 18th-century Preface), tied the church to the essential doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and this predated the rise of the Anglican Communion itself.   There were changes, of course, both in the American Church and in the Communion itself regarding the exact authority of the English formularies within Communion churches, e.g. the 39 Articles (see the 1888 Lambeth Encyclical, which dropped the express subscription to the Articles as a standard for Communion membership, even while demanding common conformance to their substance, and, interestingly, also hinting at something akin to a common doctrinal and disciplinary covenant).  But despite these, there was a basic sense that EUCSA had, in her Prayer Book and Preamble subjected herself to the demands of the Communions common teaching.  This subjection was, furthermore, concretely bound up with the See of Canterbury.

Now we might ask:  what has the current crisis shown regarding this constitutional format?  At present there are three Communion parameters within which ECUSA lives.  First, there is something called membership in a fellowship; second, there is a common mission and identity  upholding the historic faith and order within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church and embodied in the Book of Common Prayer (in Lambeth 1930, understood as a family of Prayer Books);  thirdly, communion with Canterbury.  In theory, all of these parameters impose themselves together in concert; it is debatable as to eachs force when one or the other either crumbles or is questioned.  At present, for instance, there is enormous concern on the part of many over Canterburys failure to take an active role in maintaining the force of the other two elements.  Whether this means that it should be ignored or thrown over;  or whether the other two parameters themselves will do their work on Canterbury itself is unclear.  (I would prefer to think the latter, precisely on the basis of the communion character of Anglicanism from the start  assuming it is accepted, which is what the present crisis is all about.)

What is clear, however, is that ECUSAs only wider accountability  at present in terms of her internal teaching and discipline is given through these external parameters.  Were it not for her constituent membership in the Communion as a defining element of her Constitutional existence, there would be no conciliar or legal interest period in the concerns of the wider church at present;  were there no doctrinal constraints, identifiably labeled (however broadly), that were imposed upon our ecclesial identity, there would be no demand for theological accountability (however poorly responded to at the moment);  were there no communion link to Canterbury, there would be no disciplinary force to Lambeths gathering and resolutions. 

None of these parameters, it should be said, has prevented ECUSA from in fact devolving into doctrinal and disciplinary chaos.  Why not?  Would it have been different had an alternative constitutional framework been in place?  What about Nigerias new revisions  could they have helped if they had been adopted long ago by ECUSA?  I think it fair to say that they would not.  The key parameter of accountability now in place for the Nigerian Church are the classic English formularies, interpreted according to her own internal councils.  Would they have constrained ECUSA if applied in this fashion?  It is hard to see how.  Certainly on the element of sexual ethics, in its presenting scandal today, there is nothing in the Formularies that is not already in even the 1979 Prayer Book, especially with respect to the authority of Scripture in determining these matters.  And ECUSAs own internal councils have long re-interpreted her own acknowledged standards in a way that has (in the mind of much of the rest of the Communion, eviscerated their meaning.) 

Thus, more to the point, the decline in ECUSAs theological disciplinary self-control is historically linked to a long period before the canonical revisions involved in the new Prayer Book  the 1950s, especially, but even before.  Other elements in American Episcopalianism  national and political culture, shifts in demographic power, the infiltration and rootedness of social sin of a variety of kinds  simply overwhelmed the constraining forces of the Formularies in ECUSAs self-ordering.   It is the Nigerian churchs business, certainly not mine, to ask itself if she is strong enough in the long run to resist the internal forces of sin where others have failed.   All I would say at present is that it is less a question of some kind of constitutional inoculation against such forces, as it is a matter of ordering ones life within a system where the larger Body, animated by the Sons Spirit, can come to ones aid when one has weakened and fallen.

The question for today, then, is whether the Communion-oriented parameters of ECUSAs constitution can prevail in the long-term, not only for itself but on behalf of the larger Anglican fellowship, and what will be required for that to happen.  If this does not happen, as I have long argued, Anglicanism itself will have seen its providential day pass it by;  and there will be little point in latching on to the life-rafts of individual ecclesial planks cut off from the shattered vessel of the Communion itself.  Anglicanism, in the context of her communion identity, is tied to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and if her internal life embodies itself as fragmenting, factionally hostile, local, and scripturally-barren, she is a church that has committed suicide.  The 1930 Lambeth discussion of the Communion in terms of existing for the sake of the ultimate reunion of all Christendom in one visibly united fellowship is one I share;  if the Communion cannot do that through its internal life, its purpose will have been spent. 

It is still the case  though time may well be running out more quickly than I could ever have feared  that the force of these Communion-oriented parameters have strength enough to press for an outcome of mutual subjection in the Lord and in His truth.    If I cannot pray for this, then I must pray for another church altogether. 

Ephraim Radner (the Revd Dr.)

Church of the Ascension

Pueblo, Colorado, USA

I deeply respect Timothy Sherratts worries about the Windsor Reports failure, in its immediate recommendations, to safeguard the life of conservative congregations and clergy within ECUSA, even while it  provides an (highly unrealistic) open vista of communion churches, including ECUSA, all coming together around the commitments of communion life that would make the need for such safe-guarding irrelevant.    There are obviously places in ECUSA where such safeguarding is necessary even as we speak.  There are, however, many places where, frankly, it is not  and where the House of Bishops agreed process of Delegated Episcopal Oversight has not even been tried, let alone found wanting. 

I continue to feel that the Windsor Reports usefulness lies, not in its outline of a practical way forward in the face of ECUSA error  the Report avoids dealing with this almost altogether  but in its careful and concrete discussion of what it means to choose to live in communion in the first place.  The Commission members rightly understood that this discussion had not yet been clarified in a straightforward way that touched upon actual obligations and accountabilities involved, and that could be laid out for the broad approbation of the church itself.  Among these obligations are ways of treating diocesan boundaries, jurisdictions, and mutual consultations in cases of intra- and inter-provincial conflict.  (The careful and limited rebuke of boundary-crossers made by the Report should be seen in the context of this positive outline of communion life, and not in terms of a recommendation of practical response to choices made against communion itself.),

Much of what they say, of course, is not news to those who have engaged in thinking about communion and about the Anglican Communion.  But such thinking has not been a widespread discipline among most Anglicans, including and most especially in America.  If ignorance was ever an excuse  and the Windsor Report hints that it both is and isnt in ECUSAs case  it can be no longer.  And that is a crucial point.

The Reports final paragraph  included, I am told, only with some passionate debate among Commission members  upholds the significance of having clarified the concrete obligations of communion as it has:  now we are all in a position of choosing in an informed and commonly understood way a life together or apart.  And we can all evaluate our actions against the template of this kind of choice. 

I consider the Reports usefulness in this regard, then, as providing the Communion at large, and the Primates in particular, with an agreed method of evaluating the decisions of ECUSA and their significance as indicators of ECUSAs communion commitment.  The world is watching;  and the world now understands what is at stake.  If accepted by the Primates, then, the Reports outline can be used by them as a standard by which to make their own judgments regarding common life in and with ECUSA.  And they can do this as early as their meeting in February.

It is critical, in the wake of the Windsor Report, that the ECUSA leadership now be held to an account for their choices around communion life.  Calls to American bishops for public affirmation of compliance to such a life are rightly beginning to be made.

It is only after February, should the Primates choose to make use of the Windsor Report in this way, that an actual program for safe-guarding threatened congregations and clergy can be made that responds to the mutually understood actions against communion made by ECUSA leadership.  And such a program will thereby  be consistent with a common understanding of communion itself.  That will be one of the fruits of the Report.

If, on the other hand, the Primates are unable or somehow refuse to adopt the Reports outline of communion obligations and accountabilities, and thereby also avoid making a judgment that has a common standard of coherence with respect to ECUSA, then the Reports work will have been wasted, and disastrously so.

The exhortation to hang on in and through this potential moment of clarifying judgment is appropriate, as far as it goes.  It will require more theological and spiritual foundation, however, if it is to persuade beyond this present time.  Even in such a case, however, the Windsor Report may well provide significant resources by which to understand our calling. 

Ephraim Radner, Diocese of Colorado